|
•
<br /> EPA's Headquarters Professionals'Union Opposes Fluoridation 10/11/11 11:45 PM
<br /> more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to
<br /> 13 years.Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced:fluoride's interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The
<br /> pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such things as governing the
<br /> onset of puberty.Jennifer Luke(7)has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin.
<br /> She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in
<br /> 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study,which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh,young girls experienced earlier
<br /> onset of menstruation(on average, by six months)than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston(8).
<br /> From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are
<br /> convergent.We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal
<br /> and single-cell studies(dealing with the cancer hazard),just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same
<br /> direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr Wiliiam Marcus,who also was our local union's treasurer at
<br /> the time,for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue(9). The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the
<br /> firing made that finding-that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at
<br /> his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.
<br /> The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride,although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males.The National
<br /> Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study(10)in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water.The
<br /> positive result of that study(in which mai,gr;ancies in tissues other tr7an bore were also observed), particularly in male rats, is
<br /> convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations(a principal'trigger'mechanism for inducing a
<br /> cell to become cancerous) (e.g.11a, b,c,d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey 12,
<br /> Washington and Iowa 13)based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and
<br /> other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.
<br /> Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well.An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997
<br /> (14). Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities(15a, b,c,d,
<br /> e). Crippling sk_eietal tlucros s was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical
<br /> deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council;in opposing the
<br /> standard in court, as mentioned above.
<br /> Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavtes,there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's
<br /> effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale,selective publications on this issue that proponents
<br /> cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of
<br /> Dental Research,on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences(in terms of decayed, missing
<br /> and filled teeth)among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities(16). The latest
<br /> publication(17)on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing.the
<br /> only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about
<br /> twice the incidence of dental fluorosis(the first,visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity)as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.
<br /> John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially important(18). Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for
<br /> Auckland,the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation-until he was given the task of looking at the
<br /> world-wide data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled,"Why I changed My Mind About Water
<br /> Fluoridation."In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries,
<br /> especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180
<br /> degree turn on fluoridation.
<br /> Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other aentists in the pro-
<br /> fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride(e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which
<br /> that substance affects dental health(19,20, 21).However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit
<br /> bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in
<br /> mammalian tissue,which likewise relies on enzyme systems.This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results
<br /> of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride
<br /> concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from "f.;orridatec toot" paste(22). Further,there were tumors of the oral cavity
<br /> seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.
<br /> In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not(although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting
<br /> harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies. So, in addition to our concern over the
<br /> toxicity of fluoride,we note the uncontrolled-and apparently uncontrollable-exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via
<br /> drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products.A recent report in the lay media(23),that,
<br /> according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America's children now have wentai fluoress, is just one
<br /> indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure.The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-
<br /> fluoridated Kingston New York(17)is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in
<br /> the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and
<br /> irresponsible at best. Thus,we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic
<br /> and prophylactically useless(via ingestion, at any rate)substance is wrong.
<br /> We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water.We applied
<br /> EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose,
<br /> http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm Page 2 of 5
<br />
|